Review: organisational change and patient directed strategies may increase adult immunisation and cancer screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stone EG, Morton SC, Hulscher ME, et al. Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med2002 ; 136 : 641 –51 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to guideline based adult immunisation and cancer screening? Studies were identified by searching (through February 1999) the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Special Register (which includes searches of Medline [from 1966], EMBASE/Excerpta Medica [from 1980], HealthSTAR [from 1975], and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [from 1996]), previous systematic reviews, and the Health Care Quality Improvement Projects database. Studies were selected if they were controlled clinical trials that assessed interventions to increase the use of immunisations for influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia, and use of screening for colon, breast, and cervical cancer in adults. Data were extracted on interventions (classified as reminder, provider … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.aulast%253DStone%26rft.auinit1%253DE.%2BG.%26rft.volume%253D136%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D641%26rft.epage%253D651%26rft.atitle%253DInterventions%2BThat%2BIncrease%2BUse%2Bof%2BAdult%2BImmunization%2Band%2BCancer%2BScreening%2BServices%253A%2BA%2BMeta-Analysis%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-136-9-200205070-00006%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11992299%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-136-9-200205070-00006&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11992299&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F1%2F19.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175357900001&link_type=ISI
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".